Why Ruining an Economy Is Not Enough to Topple a Regime

When an economy collapses, the reaction is almost automatic: discontent rises, protests multiply, and the regime eventually falls. Yet the history of authoritarian regimes warrants greater caution. An economy can be deeply weakened without the core of power collapsing. This is what I would call the ‘paradox of authoritarian asphyxiation’: the economic pressure that should hasten a regime’s fall can also create mechanisms that delay it.

The Iranian case is particularly interesting. The economy is under severe pressure, inflation is high, and oil revenues are fragile. But observing that the economy is suffering does not mean that the regime is close to falling. It is important to distinguish three things: the weakening of the economy, the weakening of the state, and the weakening of the regime.

First window: power can transfer suffering to the population. An authoritarian regime does not primarily seek to preserve the general standard of living; it seeks to preserve the organs on which its survival depends. When resources shrink, it prioritizes security forces, strategic sectors, and loyalty networks. The population can therefore reach its economic breaking point well before the state reaches its political breaking point.

Second window: scarcity can strengthen those who control it. The scarcer resources become, the more their distribution becomes political. Whoever controls these resources controls an increasing share of the economy. In Iran, this can strengthen structures close to........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)